Eventually the sham is going to give, and the latest letter signed by 50 NASA experts, with more than 1000 years of combined professional experience, is a sure sign the gig’s about over.

Here's the letter:

March 28, 2012

The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.

NASA Administrator

NASA Headquarters

Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard
Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven
remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA
and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact
on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when
considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of
well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists
publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming
particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is
NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change
is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of
all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public
statements.+As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme
position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact
of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven
and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this
subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s
current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of
science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12,
regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated
claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on
climate change.

Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland said in a 2006 newspaper article: "There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done."

That's a completely illogical comment. The climate neither knows nor cares where a particular molecule of atmospheric CO₂ comes from - it has the same warming effect whether it is from human or non-human sources... and that warming effect was discovered 150 years ago, so it's not exactly new science. Anthropogenic global warming was predicted over 100 years ago and has been confirmed by observations for nearly 30 years now. AGW denial is just a fossil fuel industry profit-protection racket, nothing more. It's a scam designed to keep the money rolling into their bank accounts for as long as they can, despite the immense and growing harm their pollution is doing to the planet. It's as simple and grubby as that.

Who said that a molecule cares about anything? You are losing your mind, Icarus.

Dr. Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville said in 2008 testimony to a US Senate committee: "I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind’s role is relatively minor".

"To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming."

The point is that we know carbon dioxide causes global warming - it's been known for 150 years - and it will cause that warming regardless of whether it comes from human activity or natural sources. The planet doesn't distinguish between our CO₂ and natural CO₂. So, de Freitas's comment is illogical. See?

Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University said in a 2006 presentation to the Geological Society of America: "Glaciers advanced from about 1890–1920, retreated rapidly from ~1925 to ~1945, readvanced from ~1945 to ~1977, and have been retreating since the present warm cycle began in 1977. ... Because the warming periods in these oscillations occurred well before atmospheric CO2 began to rise rapidly in the 1940s, they could not have been caused by increased atmospheric CO2, and global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035, then warm about 0.5 °C from ~2035 to ~2065, and cool slightly until 2100."

That's laughable. Why would a geologist make this claim with absolutely no physical basis whatsoever? To the best of my knowledge the only true cycles in global climate are caused by the sun and orbital variations, neither of which can account for recent warming.

"We have previously placed the solar contribution to recent global warming in context using observations and without recourse to climate models. It was shown that all solar forcings of climate have declined since 1987. The present paper extends that analysis to include the effects of the various time constants with which the Earth's climate system might react to solar forcing. The solar input waveform over the past 100 years is defined using observed and inferred galactic cosmic ray fluxes, valid for either a direct effect of cosmic rays on climate or an effect via their known correlation with total solar irradiance (TSI), or for a combination of the two....The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings."

Dr. Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville said in 2008 testimony to a US Senate committee: "I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind’s role is relatively minor".

Periods of Earth warming and cooling occur in cycles. This is well understood, as is the fact that small-scale cycles of about 40 years exist within larger-scale cycles of 400 years, which in turn exist inside still larger scale cycles of 20,000 years, and so on.

In 1936 anthropogenic influences were growing but there had also been a big decline in volcanic activity (which tends to have a cooling influence on climate), and also solar activity was increasing, so it was a combination of all these factors -

Geologic data show that about 19,000 years ago, Northern Hemisphere glaciers began to melt, and sea levels rose. Melting glaciers dumped so much freshwater into the ocean that it slowed a system of currents that transports heat throughout the world. Called the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), this ocean conveyor belt is particularly important in the Atlantic where it flows northward across the equator, stealing Southern Hemisphere heat and exporting it to the Northern Hemisphere. The AMOC then sinks in the North Atlantic and returns southward in the deep ocean. A large pulse of glacial meltwater, however, can place a freshwater lid over the North Atlantic and halt this sinking, backing up the entire conveyor belt. The simulation showed weakening of the AMOC due to the increase in glacial melt beginning about 19,000 years ago, which decreased ocean heat transport, keeping heat in the Southern Hemisphere and cooling the Northern Hemisphere. Other studies suggest this southern warming caused sea ice to retreat and shifted winds around the Southern Ocean, uncorking carbon dioxide that had previously been stored in the deep ocean and venting it to the atmosphere around 17,500 years ago. This rise in carbon dioxide then initiated worldwide warming.

Here's a quote for you. Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University said in a 2006 presentation to the Geological Society of America: "Glaciers advanced from about 1890–1920, retreated rapidly from ~1925 to ~1945, readvanced from ~1945 to ~1977, and have been retreating since the present warm cycle began in 1977. ... Because the warming periods in these oscillations occurred well before atmospheric CO2 began to rise rapidly in the 1940s, they could not have been caused by increased atmospheric CO2, and global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035, then warm about 0.5 °C from ~2035 to ~2065, and cool slightly until 2100."

All it is is a scheme to have us give all our wealth to the rest of the world to save them from their backwardness. That's what Cap and Trade was about. NASA's personnel realize the fallacy of this crap and some can see the truth of what is happening.

This was known for quite a while because of NASA's satellites which were sent up years ago to measure whether the earth was warming as the Global alarmists claimed. It wasn't and they know this and the papers have been published. So they may be forced out that's true but you have been given the truth and you know they are lying thru their teeth. The real agenda is what we have to deal with not some toxic screen being blown by the politicians.